Personal blog that will cover my personal interests. I write about Christian Theology and Apologetics, politics, culture, science, and literature.

Saturday, August 13, 2011

Does atheism lead to cult of personality hero worship? | True Freethinker

Mariano has posted a really cool article and I think he asks a very good question given what we see surrounding people like Christopher Hitchens, Dan Barker, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins. People have become so enamored with them that people don't seem to think about the things they actually say anymore. They have traded the authority they hated for being under the authority of a man. There is another word for that: "Cult".Face it people have to worship something we deem higher than ourselves. If you reject God, you will find something else.

First,Yeah I know he debated an atheist once and I think he won that. Good for him indeed.

And second, have you ever went to Richard Dawkins website and written anything disagreeing with something Dawkins has written or said? There are people that treat him as a god. Just because you many have a healthier mindset than these people doesn't mean that all atheists are as even handed as you.

Third, If you don't know about the extreme cults out there dealing in witchcraft and magic that has more to do with your ignorance of what Mariano is saying than about him being wrong. Instead of displaying your ignorance, you should educate yourself.

I would think that if you fairly applied whatever incredibly narrow definition of "cult" you'd have to use to avoid defining your own church as one, I bet you would find that Richard Dawkins blog (or whomever's) isn't even on the radar.

So with that said, this seems to be a Matthew 7:3 moment for you. Let's be clear, are you really suggesting that some people posting fawning comments on another guy's blog is somehow comparable with tens of thousands of people physically attending mega-churches services on a weekly basis where they listen to someone who has enough charisma and "personality" to hold their attention for an hour or so and keep them coming back week after week, all the while, giving at least 10% of their salary? Is that a comparison you really want to make? Show me an actual atheist cult of personality. Apples and Oranges.

Let's be clear, are you really suggesting that some people posting fawning comments on another guy's blog is somehow comparable with tens of thousands of people physically attending mega-churches services on a weekly basis where they listen to someone who has enough charisma and "personality" to hold their attention for an hour or so and keep them coming back week after week, all the while, giving at least 10% of their salary? Is that a comparison you really want to make? Show me an actual atheist cult of personality. Apples and Oranges.

Yes, let's be clear. If you think that going to church is about "tens of thousands of people physically attending mega-churches services on a weekly basis where they listen to someone who has enough charisma and "personality" to hold their attention for an hour or so and keep them coming back week after week, all the while, giving at least 10% of their salary" it explains why you have no idea what you are talking about. Geez! What churches have you gone to? Going to church is about worshiping and drawing closer to God, not to the pastor/bishop or who ever is leading the church. You are right it is apples and oranges. Church has nothing to do with a cult of personality. However Richard Dawkins and his followers are another point entirely. As for an an atheist cult of personality look to Mao, Stalin, and Mussolini, or Pol pot. As for Dawkins I hope you aren't so naive to think that everyone agrees with you? http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist

No I don't, I'm not the one making generalizations. I was talking about a very specific (albeit prolific) type of church. However, you are saying that Richard Dawkins has fans, some obsessive, some not, therefore Atheism leads to "cult of personality", however, when thousands of different charismatic pastors pack thousands of "worshippers" into thousands of churches week after week, it's in no way a "cult of personality". OK, fair enough, but I really don't know how you live with that level of intellectual dishonesty.

However, you are saying that Richard Dawkins has fans, some obsessive, some not, therefore Atheism leads to "cult of personality", however, when thousands of different charismatic pastors pack thousands of "worshippers" into thousands of churches week after week, it's in no way a "cult of personality". OK, fair enough, but I really don't know how you live with that level of intellectual dishonesty.

Um, no I never said that Atheism by definition must lead to a cult of personality. Only that there are examples where it can. And yes mega church pastors can develop cults of personality around themselves. That is why they are "cults". And if you think that a pastor who leaves his wife for a stripper is a true christian or that everyone was there to worship God then the intellectual dishonesty is yours.

There you go! Nice work. But how exactly does this relate to Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens in the least?

Bringing up those guys relate to atheist cults of personality - like some people follow Hitchens and Dawkins. It has just as much to do with the discussion as bringing up false churches founding on cults of personality.

And if you think that a pastor who leaves his wife for a stripper is a true christian...

Of course he was. Aren't you all worthless sinners after all?

I enjoy your criteria for who is a "true" christian and who is not. "Only good people are christians. If they do bad, they aren't a christian. Oh, by the way, we are all bad." Classic!

Bringing up those guys relate to atheist cults of personality - like some people follow Hitchens and Dawkins

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, when people follow an order from Richard Dawkins to round up a particular group of people and murder them, then let's talk. Christianity, and communism, both have a rich history of this however.

I enjoy your criteria for who is a "true" christian and who is not. "Only good people are christians. If they do bad, they aren't a christian. Oh, by the way, we are all bad." Classic!

If you think that is my definition of "Christian" then you are a lot more dishonest than I thought. A Christian is a repentant sinner striving to do better. One who leaves his wife for another woman is not trying to live more like Christ. Your comments would be laughable if they weren't so dishonest.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, when people follow an order from Richard Dawkins to round up a particular group of people and murder them, then let's talk. Christianity, and communism, both have a rich history of this however.

Atheist like Dawkins deceives others as well as themselves. Listening to him will end in eternal damnation. Now tell me which he isn't just as dangerous as Stalin or any of the other regime held together by the dictator's force of personality. Be honest.

Here's the deal. You claim that god affects you. You should be able to then prove god exists while maintaining naturalistic assumptions. Presuming the bible is true isn't good enough.

So when you say stuff like "listening to Richard Dawkins will end in eternal damnation" you simply look the fool. First, prove souls exist, then prove they endure beyond biological death, then prove damnation exists, then...). You've got a long row to hoe.

Of course a true born-again Christians can slip up. But a born-again Christian repents - acknowledges his/her sin and turns away from it. Show me where Hitler did that? Or how about the cheating Pastor you talked about?

Hands down the dumbest thing you've ever written. And that's saying something. There is no eternal damnation. I'd bet my life on it.

Well, I guess you opted for dishonesty. Big surprise. And about betting your life...you have most definitely done that. You can do better. May God grant you that mercy. As long as you are alive there is hope for you. Don't throw it away.

So it's not judgmental to conclude that those who attend mega churches

Go back and reread carefully. I didn't say mega-churches are cults, I said by whatever definition you use to include Richard Dawkins as a "cult" must surely include mega-churches (actually any church for that matter).

If you can't see an important distinction like that then that just shows your limitation.

I think it's you who don't get the distinction. The point is not that some churches can become cults of personality. And I am not claiming that it can't. What I am saying is that people can be just as deluded and hanging on every word coming from Hitchens or Dawkins without rational or discerning thought. You know...like you.

Well, when two people have two different standards, what else would you call it?

"Double standard" in this case is you denouncing some churches as "cults of personality" and failing to see how the same thing happens in Atheism (as a movement - everyone worships something) and in totalitarian dictatorship.

The point is not that some churches can become cults of personality. And I am not claiming that it can't.

And yet you did... "Church has nothing to do with a cult of personality."

"Double standard" in this case is you denouncing some churches as "cults of personality"...

oh geeze, remember where I didn't actually do that?

The point is that whatever standard you'd need to use to claim Richard Dawkins is a "cult of personality" would necessarily include just about every church on the planet as well. I'm not saying every church on the planet is a "cult of personality", but that your standard is bunk.

everyone worships something

Prove this.

...and failing to see how the same thing happens in ...[]... totalitarian dictatorship.

I'm curious. Have you ever passed a reading comprehension test? If you have you seem to have forgotten little things like context. So let me help you out.

In my original statement, I wasn't talking about a specific physical congregation. I'm referring to all those who hold the Bible as inerrant and believe that Jesus is God and paid for our sins on the cross and was Resurrected. Nothing to do with a cult of personality. Again more honesty on your part is in order.

oh geeze, remember where I didn't actually do that?

The point is that whatever standard you'd need to use to claim Richard Dawkins is a "cult of personality" would necessarily include just about every church on the planet as well. I'm not saying every church on the planet is a "cult of personality", but that your standard is bunk.

What definition of "cult" are you using? You don't seem to know what standard I am using.

Prove this [that every worships something]

Let's define "worship". "Worship" is to ascribe value to something - to the point that you align your life and views to it. Idolatry is putting anything as more important than God. Every time you deny God or deny that the Bible is true you are worshiping your reason and intellect which you claim that you understand that it's flawed and not perfect. Makes no sense, yet you limp on through life.

Are you freaking serious?????

Yes, name a single totalitarian regime that was not based around a cult of personality? One man holding it together by his own personality and actions. Jim Jones and David Koresh are examples of men who did it using a religious cult. Some people follow Hitchens and Dawkins for the same reasons.

In my original statement, I wasn't talking about a specific physical congregation. I'm referring to all those who hold the Bible as inerrant and believe that Jesus is God and paid for our sins on the cross and was Resurrected. Nothing to do with a cult of personality. Again more honesty on your part is in order.

Oh I read quite well, but apparently you've never heard of a tautology. "Those who are not part of a cult of personality are not part of a cult of personality". Well played...

What definition of "cult" are you using?

I'm not, I'm just trying to figure out what standard you are using that would include people who like Richard Dawkins, but not then include everyone else on earth...

"Worship" is to ascribe value to something...

People who breath worship. I'll stick with Merriam Webster.

Yes, name a single totalitarian regime that was not based around a cult of personality?

You completely misunderstood. Of course totalitarian regimes are cults of personality, but you've not demonstrated that Hitchens and Dawkins are.

I did, but I didn't see anywhere in Tauton's article where he ever broached the subject of Dawkins leading a cult of personality. There's a discussion of him having "followers" in the comments, but that's just assertion. Are you sure that's the article you meant to link to?

So you didn't look at both of the links. The comments goes to show how there are atheists who just follow Dawkins without thought. The other article makes the claim and says that it's actually dangerous to your movement.

If you are trying to get people to leave Christianity and go your way of thinking - you have a movement. That is Loftus' goal. That is Dawkins' goal. That is Hitchens' Goal. That was one of Stalin's goals. That was one of Mao's goals. The was Pol Pot's [check the link if you don't think the spelling is right] goals. If you are saying that is not your goal then I don't know why you are commenting here and reading this blog.

So what did the Tauton's article have to do with Richard Dawkins being a cult of personality?

So let me get this straight: You are unable to understand an atheist calling attention to how hero worship (READ "Cult of personality") so instead you wanna know how Tauton's article shows that Dawkins is running a cult of personality.

Let me draw you a map. I should have guessed that it wasn't obvious to you because you tend to filter out anything that doesn't fit what you want.

The point to linking to the article is to show that I'm not the only person who sees Dawkins' movement as a thing being held together by his personality. The comments consist of people who take both viewpoints. You act like Mariano made this up and no one else even considers it. Just because you missed it doesn't make you stupid. I mean you missed the fact that the Bible is true also. No one knows everything.

The point of looking at comments was to show that there are many other opinions and some people who are atheists do not agree with you on this subject. If you are stupid enough to take the attitude that comments on a blog should be ignored and given no weight you sure comment a lot. Of course that doesn't make a comment true or useful. I mean take 99% of the things you write here: mistaken at best.

And if you choose to ignore links or throw out evidence without evaluating it the best you can (although you continue to show lack of ability to do so), it is your sorry loss. I realize that an entire article written by an atheist denying your presuppostion and agreeing with Mariano is difficult, but be honest about it.

Your citing of blog comments pales in comparison to your using a google search to pretend to be using a concordance. Good stuff, but sadly you don't even have a veneer of seriousness or respectability. Nice work.